It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Mexico threatens Arizona over Anti-Illegals Measure

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
They aren't white nations, last I checked they have black, Asian, and even hispanics, right? ALso, I don't know of any japanese/chinese/korean/vietmanese/others(well, we have the islanders right? like bandit? he can join in to) on this board, but if they want to come along to, fine with me. Don't see why though, not their borders being invaded. Awww, look at the poor mexican, taking the job I applied for cause he works for less then minimum wage, awwww, look at all those food stamps and tax dollars going to him while I can't get unemployment cause I was never considered full time worker. Awww, look at him as he commits a crime then runs back home to Mexico where he is safe cause they don't send back the murderers, rapists, and thiefs.(California is the major problem with this, the mexican gangs go north, rob, rape, kill, then go home at night in mexico where they are safe from the short arm of the law)

And yes, I would gladly take those jobs, my dad does, he works at jeep, 9 hour days 6 days a week, though he gets paid about 9 dollars and hour since been working there 18 years. And dish washer? I was that at Mr. Beefy's, great place to eat, just stick them in the dish washer, take them out and put them into place when done. WHile during work hours may have to clean some so they have plenty, but at end of day, just stick them in the dishwasher and wait for it to finish. Or picking fruit, that was so much fun, best summer job I ever had. Picking apples, sure ate one or two, dozen, but still, not as bad as one would think.

Anyways nothing racist with alien hunting, it is called protecting the border, something every other country does but America and Canada. Why is that? How come every other country is allowed to shoot and kill, but if America even just catches them then they are evil.




posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Heck, I guess we are evil for just refusing to feed them and let them vote in our elections....isn't that one in the constitution, that citizenship is a requirement for voting?



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
so if the mexican govt wants their illigal alliens to vote in the u.s. shouldn't u.s. citezens be able to go to mexico illegaly and vote and live off thier system.....although i don't know why someone would...but shouldn't
this idea work??

i'm heading to mexico



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Heck, I guess we are evil for just refusing to feed them and let them vote in our elections....isn't that one in the constitution, that citizenship is a requirement for voting?


No, I think that if more Americans who want stronger anti-immigration laws were able to speak about it in an adult and diplomatic fashion, words like "racist" wouldn't be slung about. I certainly don't think that every person who posted in opposition to Derbez here is a racist. The problem is that many of the posts about this topic don't have a "We have a disagreement" tone. They have a "You're a stupid dirty filthy foreign lying stealing animal" tone. Try using that tone with the Europeans or the Canadians, and you will quickly find relations with them deteriorating as well. I suspect that is why Derbez felt this law would make xenophobia stronger in the US. Those who want stronger anti-immigration laws should be very hard on such racist statements, because they weaken your cause.

To give an example of why such statements make your cause weak: I am opposed to the Iraq war, but I believe that people who say things like "Americans are committing genocide" or "Bush is a Nazi" make the anti-war movement look unintelligent and mean-spirited, because such statements are simply wrong. I speak out when I hear people say such things. If we want to change the hearts and minds of people who support the war, we shouldn't insult and belittle their humanity. I think you should keep the same thing in mind when you speak about Mexicans or any other group of people. When some loud voices are racist (or, if you don't like that term, call it "inhumane"), it unfortunately marks the whole group badly. because a number of the statements here are horribly mean-spirited.

Personally, I can't find any reason to oppose Proposition 200 myself. I think I disagree with Derbez, at least from the limited information I have about the issue. Mexico has similar laws about voting and health services, so I don't see how Mexicans should (or will) be able to control American laws about such issues. I don't think being in favor of strong immigration laws makes a person evil.

The way one views the immigrants, however, does say something about a person's humanity, in my opinion. Legal or illegal, immigrants are human beings who are just looking for work, and frankly, there are far worse laws out there that someone could break. And there are few more compelling reasons to break a law than poverty or the search for a decent future for one's children.

Perhaps those who have such an angry tone should redirect their anger away from the immigrants and toward Americans who knowingly hire someone illegally so that they can pay a fellow human being far less than the law stipulates and work him for far more hours?

As for "alien hunting," I think the desire to shoot and kill someone who simply wants to work falls into a category of reason that I'm not capable of understanding. I don't think anti-drug laws in the US are strong enough, and I also believe that alcohol should be illegal. Shall I start shooting everyone who I see taking drugs or drinking simply because I don't like the way the government handles these issues? Of course not. That would be completely insane.

By the way, James the Lesser, no civilized country in the world allows citizens or even armed officials to hunt foreign-looking people. Your desire to be given free range to kill foreigners is kind of scary.



[edit on 29-1-2005 by Estrella]



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Estrella

It would apprear that you are trying to make more out of this then there really is. I have only seen a few posts that refer to race or even killing/hunting. My guess is those few might be younger generation types who just spout off without thinking. There is only one real exception and that would be Chacota (sp?) who is a known Native American and speaks out against Americans in gerneral all the time. However even he is wrong when complaining about Americans. He also fails to mention that many of his own people did the very same thing, but I guess it was OK when they did it to other tribes, but not when the French, Spanish, Aztecs and americans did it to native Americans. That is Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

Back on topic now. Proposition 200 was very carefully worded. As written it states ALL illegal imigrants/aliens. It just so happens that one Mexican offical now wants to make an issue out it.

All the people of Arizona want is to save the state funds from being wasted on illegals, which is only right.

Last time I was in Europe a friend broke his leg and the hospital would not even look at him until he showed them an Insurance card or money. That is not the case in the US, Emergency rooms have to accept any and all patients.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Ya, only, all they will do is put a slint on it and send you home, telling you do go see another doctor the next day or two...
Been there, done that, needed a state senator to make it work...



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardCore American
How about he/they fix their OWN government so he/they DON"T have to steal our jobs or ruin our economy.

That is one good idea. One that we should be discussing and pushing forward more and more.


You have voted HardCore American for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.




[edit on 30-1-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
dawnstar says:

"Still say if the danged business would do their moral duty and pay wages equilivalent to the cost of the basic necessities for them and their families at least we would be a heck lot better off!!"

Well the workers'd be a lot better off for a week, but then when the company would go bankrupt, they'd all be out of a job.

[I]"And, gee, it would probably solve both problems....the demand for the illegals would diminish, since the businesses are paying a wage that we could live on and not below or near minimum we'd be happy to do the job..."

...and the only problem would be that the business would have to do one or two things:

(1) Raise the cost of the products and services they make to pay for the wages, which means they would not be able to compete with overseas making the same product at the same quality with an overhead that's less than half of what ours is. So no one buys the American Union-Label things and the company goes out of business and all the workers are out of a job.

(2) Pay the additional wages, sell the goods and services for the same price, run out of money -- and the company goes out of business and all the workers are out of a job.

Which one of those options do you choose, dawnstar? The one which puts the workers out of a job -- or the one which puts the workers out of a job?

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Firstly, I can't see any court (international or otherwise) mandating non-residents be allowed to vote.

Secondly, the Mexican official is just posturing for his own reasons.

Thirdly, Bush's immigration plans will moot this argument anyway. With the 'new America' every illegal becomes legal.
.

.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
OPTION 3:

Require ALL EMPLOYERS to pay their employees a "living wage".
Offer those employers who honestly can't meet this requirements tax cuts and other perks if they can:
1. Prove that there is indeed a "need" for them to get help to pay their salary obligation.
2. Have in place salary caps at $70,000.
3. Have limited funds in reserve.
And, well, the government should be doing some things also...
4. Say heck with the wto and the like and start protecting our markets some...

5. Make realistic efforts to get the cost of living lower..
6. divert any savings in the welfare rolls directly to these programs that will help the companies pay the living wages, and maybe a few tax cuts for the rest of us.....in other words, this money can't be sent into all those nice pork projects, or iraq, or anywhere else. It is to be used to help adjust our economy to one of self sufficiency, which can only happen if the wages are enough to support the employees and their families.
--------------------------------------------
First I don't buy the idea that they would have to increase the cost of their products that much to meet any increase in the employers wages.
Second, I do believe that if the government wouldn't just divert the money saved from people not having to depend on government programs to other things, but return it back to the economy, we would all be better off.
Third, if the companies can't operate their business in the red, while paying aliving wage, well, maybe they shouldn't be in business....or maybe the are paying the lunatic that is their CEO just too much money.....But, to say this isn't true, and then go on blathering about the idea of "free markets", is a crock of bull!!! It isn't a "free market" when the majority of the jobs are below $35,000 and many earning under that amount are depending on government subsidies to meet their daily needs.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
dawnstar says:

"Still say if the danged business would do their moral duty and pay wages equilivalent to the cost of the basic necessities for them and their families at least we would be a heck lot better off!!"

Well the workers'd be a lot better off for a week, but then when the company would go bankrupt, they'd all be out of a job.

[I]"And, gee, it would probably solve both problems....the demand for the illegals would diminish, since the businesses are paying a wage that we could live on and not below or near minimum we'd be happy to do the job..."

...and the only problem would be that the business would have to do one or two things:

(1) Raise the cost of the products and services they make to pay for the wages, which means they would not be able to compete with overseas making the same product at the same quality with an overhead that's less than half of what ours is. So no one buys the American Union-Label things and the company goes out of business and all the workers are out of a job.

(2) Pay the additional wages, sell the goods and services for the same price, run out of money -- and the company goes out of business and all the workers are out of a job.

Which one of those options do you choose, dawnstar? The one which puts the workers out of a job -- or the one which puts the workers out of a job?

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]


OK I think you left out an option. Option c is for the comapnies to accept a lower profit for the fat cats at the top, so they can afford to pay a more equitable wage to the people who do the real work.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I find it humorous that Country A can sue Country B to allow A's citizens to break B's laws.

I can just see the opening statements:

"Your honor, it is a well known fact that conditions are horrendous in our country. Therefore we wish to petition you to force the US to cut a hole in their fences to allow our citizens to sneak in. In addition to allowing them to sneak in we would also like each person who sneaks in to be assigned a social worker who will make sure that they are given every right and privelege including those that some Americans work their entire lives to secure. We feel that these priveleges are deserved by our citizens who sneak into America simply because we have decided so."

By this guy's argument I should be able to hop on a plane to France for a week's vacation and cast a vote against Chirac simply because I don't like him, and it would be wrong of France to not let me vote in their election.

Sorry, the right to vote is the right to determine the future of a nation, and that right belongs to the citizens of that country and no one else.

America needs help economically. There are more Americans than you can imagine that are unemployed and living below the poverty line. The American government is supposed to assist its citizens. Similarly, the Mexican government is supposed to assist its citizens, not waste time trying to force someone else to assist them. That is called poor governing.

If this person represents the Mexican government then the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Mexican government is a failure. Create job programs, assist your people, don't pawn them off on others. What is that?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
Option c is for the comapnies to accept a lower profit for the fat cats at the top, so they can afford to pay a more equitable wage to the people who do the real work.



This is the problem with our economy today. Corporate greed has deepened the lust for profit at any expence. Including the American citizen. If the greedy people would quit being so damn greedy we wouldnt have so many people just scraping by.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Dawnstar says:

”Require ALL EMPLOYERS to pay their employees a "living wage".”

My son Andy is a shift manager at a small fast-food restaurant as a part time job while he’s in college. He makes $7/hr and the cook makes $6.50; one other wait person makes $6. There re two other shifts, with a total of 9 employees. The restaurant is owned by an oriental immigrant family who work there themselves as necessary, but are of retirement age (late sixties) and this is their retirement (since they didn’t work in the US long enough to get social security).

Since he counts out all the receipts, Andy knows exactly how much the place takes in on a daily basis, and since he’s one of the guys who checks the invoices he knows exactly how much the food costs. Crank in about $500/month for the storefront, $1000/month in franchise fees, $500 for electricity and city services, and $350 for liability insurance, and the owners clear $4000 a month! That’s $48,000 a year gross into the pockets of these “fat-cat capitalist pigs”!

Now if they were to pay an additional $5/hr to the two part time managers, three part-time cooks, and four part-time waitpersons. Figure 9 people who work an average of 25 hours/week is 225 person hr/week. Giving those people a $5/hr “living wage” increase is $1125 / week. Multiply that by the 4.33 weeks per month, and the owner’s gross goes from $4000 to minus $875/month!

Suppose you just gave them a $2.50/hr wage increase? Cool. Now the owners would gross $1,562.68 income per month.

Do the math, Dawnstar. This is Business 101, not brain surgery.

You pay everyone a “living wage”, and the Chaings lose their restaurant and their retirement, and 9 people lose their jobs. Thank you oh so very much.

”Offer those employers who honestly can't meet this requirements tax cuts and other perks if they can…”

Brilliant:

Offering people “tax cuts and other perks” means that the government will raise everyone’s taxes to pay for those perks, so that any “living wage” increase people get is wiped out by their having to subsidize the small businesses.

”… 1. Prove that there is indeed a "need" for them to get help to pay their salary obligation. “

Force them to go through all the paperwork and government forms to“prove that there is a need…” Phenomenal! We’ll have another huge federal bureaucracy, just like the welfare office or the unemployment office or the IRS, and every business owner will be spending his time filling out government paperwork to be reviewed and rejected by the government bureaucrats whom, of course, will be living off our taxes.

Mmmmm! Big government! Yummy yummy yummy.

” 2. Have in place salary caps at $70,000.”

So now you want the government to tell us all how much money we can make? Let’s see, I wonder how many bright young kids will got to medical, dental, law, or engineering schools if they know that the will be capped at $70k a year.

Let me think… hold on a minute..

Ah…. Got it! exactly zero.

Dawnstar, you’ve just removed any incentive for people to work hard to advance themselves. But no problem, we can just import more engineers and doctors and dentists from India, and keep on having them provide us with the help desk guys for our computers, right?

”3. Have limited funds in reserve.”

Limited funds in reserve? Great! The fifty thousand dollars the small business owner has saved up to buy the new ovens or the refurbishment of his restaurant or a couple more dryers for his Laundromat or maybe a Christmas bonus for his employees is now going to be locked up in a government escrow account that pays 3.5% per year. Whoopee.

“And, well, the government should be doing some things also... Say heck with the wto and the like and start protecting our markets some...”

Sure, Dawnstar. We’ll slap big tariffs on all foreign goods, which means that you won’t be able to buy a Honda Civic unless you want to pay $25,000 for it, which means the other countries are going to do exactly the same thing, so we won’t be able to sell any of our goods and our trade deficit, already in the stratosphere will blow out somewhere into the orbit of Mars, and the country’s debt service will be right up there with it.

”5. Make realistic efforts to get the cost of living lower..”

Cool. You tell me how to do that, and I will go out right now and rent a tuxedo to wear to hear your acceptance speech in Stockholm when you win the Nobel Prize in Economics next year, because if you can figure out a way to get the cost of living lower, you will definitely win the Nobel.

”6. divert any savings in the welfare rolls directly to these programs that will help the companies pay the living wages, and maybe a few tax cuts for the rest of us....”.

Savings? Savings? Your scheme to raise the minimum wage is going to double the welfare rolls, for cripes sake! What kind of savings will you get from that?

”…in other words, this money can't be sent into all those nice pork projects, or iraq, or anywhere else. It is to be used to help adjust our economy to one of self sufficiency, which can only happen if the wages are enough to support the employees and their families.”

Have you ever taken a course – high school or college – in macroeconomics?

Groingrinder says:

”OK I think you left out an option. Option c is for the comapnies to accept a lower profit for the fat cats at the top, so they can afford to pay a more equitable wage to the people who do the real work.”

Who defines what is “equitable”, Groingrinder: you or the people actually providing the jobs? The CEO of my company is responsible for the jobs and futures of almost one hundred thousand people; I don’t care how much he makes, I think he’s worth it.

But even if you think that we should follow the lead of other industrial success stories like Cuba and North Korea and fix the wages of the capitalist pigs, most of the jobs in this country are in the little companies with less that fifty employees, an owner who works 80 hours a week, and a razor-thin profit margin.

You folks need to think this stuff through. If your ideas worked, it’d be great. But they simply don’t, and I’m not being sarcastic or facetious when I say I’m sorry, because I really wish they did.

But they don’t.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
If your little resturant owners are clearing less than $50,000/yr, well, they'd be eligible for the tax cuts. And, I've stated where the money for these tax cuts would be coming from, the savings from the social service system. Basically, the ones who would be left on the social service systems would be those who are either in a temporary bind, or are for some ligitamate reason cannot not work (what the system was originally intended for anyways...at least that's what my elected rep has told me). And, well, any company who can pay all their employers wages are then free to structure their wage scale anyway they like....as long as it pays everyone a living wage....($9-$10/hr or there abouts.....depending on where they live...remember a child has 2 parents , therefore, two paychecks should be coming in for them.) The salary cap would be a requirement to obtaining the taxcredits only.

oh, and by the way....the system we have working now isn't working either. It's resulting in our local and state governments throwing a large portion of their revenue into these social service programs with a big chunk going to medicaid. This is resulting in them not having the money needed to do the things that ARE THEIR OBLIGATION. Last year, it resulted in the death of a young engineer who was working for NASA. The snow hadn't been cleared over the overpass, and well, he just somehow drove up all the snow that had been pushed to the side of the road by the snowplows (that should have been removed off the overpass all together) and landed down below on the highway. Many people just couldn't make it to work in the morning, or got halfway and then had to turn around and try to make it back home because the ran into four feet of snow on the highways. Budget cuts had for the most part, did away with any overtime for the city, county and state employees. So, let me see, what do you think I feel is more important, the city, county and state providing services such as these, that enable us to function, or that the doctors, the CEO's, and such get more in yearly raises than these lless skilled employees are making in a year?

But, let's look at the neocons preferred option....
We want our high wages for us overly talented people, and we want business to be totally free to set their wage scale as they like. BUT, we want also want our money to stay in our pockets and not be redistributed amoung the poor so they can have a roof over their heads, and food in their stomach, and medical attention when they need it. We want the cost of our Big Macs low enough so that we can eat six or seven if we want, and still have money in our pockets. And, well, basically, it's not our problem if the person who is serving them has two kids at home she is trying to feed. It's not our fault she is lazy, she should get a better job, or take out huge loans to get training! But, we shouldn't be forced to give her our money.....
well, where will that option lead you....if not to homeless hungry children beggin in the streets?
The simple fact is...
The wages of the lesser skilled need to go up.
The cost of living needs to go down...
Everyone who truly needs a jobs should have one.
And, through it all the businesses need to survive.
And, while we are at it, we need to get rid of the fraud that is pervasive in every government program that exists.

All of those areas needs to be addresses as a package...very slowly, and as percise as a symphony is a it plays one of Mozarts great works....

otherwise, well, we are dead in the water, with every cent the government throws into the economy just making a bigger mess out of it.

I'm sorry, but when employers start trying to dictate the actions of their employees and their health habits, be it the diet, or their exercise routine, or their drinking or smoking at the urging of the insurance giants, well, WE ARE NO LONGER IN A FREE SOCIETY!!!

[edit on 1-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Dawnstar, at least you answered one of my questions: Whether or not you've ever taken an economics course.

Let me go over this again.

You say: "If your little resturant owners are clearing less than $50,000/yr, well, they'd be eligible for the tax cuts. And, I've stated where the money for these tax cuts would be coming from, the savings from the social service system."

And I said that raising the wages to 9 or ten dollars an hour would lay off tons of lower paid people and strain welfarre way past where it is now. Didn't you do the math I asked you to?

"Basically, the ones who would be left on the social service systems would be those who are either in a temporary bind, or are for some ligitamate reason cannot not work (what the system was originally intended for anyways...at least that's what my elected rep has told me)."

Dawnstar, let's think this through together: If you raise the wages of everyone to $10/hour, you will have to provide the employers of all those newly-'rich' employers the same amount of money, because the profit margin on most small businesses (and they're the ones who employ most of the people in America) are pretty low. Most employers simply can't afford to pay their employees $10 an hour and still stay in business.

It seems to me that you're proposing that the government step in and, in effect, make all the economic decisions for the companies, and actually use tax money to pay their bills.

You seem to think that, once the people start to pay their dishwashers $10/hour, the social services cost will go down. That would be nice, but it's simply not the case. Most of the money spent on social services are "entitlements" like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, AFDC, and so on. If you check it out, you will find that a person making $20,800/year (full time at $10/hr) is still eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and more than half would still be eligible for AFDC, school lunches, and all the other stuff.

So you're not going to see a drop in the social services cost; instead, you'd see additional expenditures of billions and billions of dollars a year in the tax dollars of all Americans, not counting all the billions of dollars to set up a huge federal bureaucracy, as well as the incredible amount of lost productivity as the small business owners spend their time trying to justify all their business needs to a bunch of federal bureaucrats.

If you've ever been on welfare or unemployment, or had an audit by the IRS, you know how many hours and hours of your time were spent trying to justify your position. Imagine millions of small business (and large business) owners doing that, say, three or four times per year.

The big businesses, of course, would simply pass along the cost of their accountants and lawyers to the consumers, but the little guy would just have to spend 85 hours a week rather than 80, in doing his job.

And meanwhile, of course, all the taxpayers are picking up the tab, including those newly-'rich' folks making $10/hr.

I'm afraid that you r view on "tax credits" are a bit skewed; you seem to think that tax credits are manna from heaven. They're not; the money that the tax credit recipient gets has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is simply the taxpayer next door. your plan doesn't incrase wealth, it's simply borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

If you want to debate this issue, I'd be glad to do so, but I think it'd be better, rather than just going off on a tangent, to discuss, say, the mechanism for money transfers given a ten-dollar-an-hour minimum wage.

But before we do that let me ask you a question:

Rather than raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and make everyone a bit more comfortable, why not raise it to $35/hour and make everyone rich?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It took two parents to have a kid, it also takes two to take care of it through life, therefore, that $10/hr, should be doubled to take into consideration the other parent of the child.....and that other person should be held accountable for the monetary support of that child..and well, the system should be improved to make sure the child gets it, instead of having the money lost in the system, which does happen occasionally.
As far as the tax credits and other perks the businesses get...No kidding, I know where the money is coming from....the taxpayer. But, what is the taxpayer getting for that money now....new businesses that fail within a year? Hotels built in areas that are already oversaturated with hotels? Just how much does a maid get an hour anyways? Compare that to the amount of money that was given away by the government to create that $6 or $7/hr job.... Why not put in a few conditions, just to ensure that we get at least a little bang for our bucks?

By the way, a person in NY making around $35,000/yr who has a family of five will be eligible for child health plus.....the will only pay around $7/child and then Blue Cross/Blue Shield will cover the cost of their medical bills....subsidized by the taxpayers money of course....ya, I know the programs, and they guidelines....I've watched them increase as the years went by...and well, I've also seen the CEO's and upper management of blue cross/blue shield go up also....gee, where do you think all that taxmoney went to....a good portion of it I believe went to those salary increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"If you've ever been on welfare or unemployment, or had an audit by the IRS, you know how many hours and hours of your time were spent trying to justify your position. Imagine millions of small business (and large business) owners doing that, say, three or four times per year. "
-------------------------------------------------------------

Try standing in one of those lines for hours after working all night, with absolutely no sleep, just to hear the slow arsed women working tell someone else who complained about the wait...."Oh, but you don't have to work...that's what I am here for."

The employee's time is just as valuable as the employers. And, well, the employers may just find themselves from time to time not having a few employees, because that's where they are....standing in a line somewhere...because some idiot thinks that "They don't have to work."
I'm sure the government would be alot kinder to the businesses, they certainly won't be told that they don't have to work since the person who is there to serve them thinks her job is to make it possible that they don't.

As far as the cost of the paperwork, well, NY passed their great smoking ban a few years ago, and then decided that well, hey some of the businesses would more than likely be hurt. So they came up with vouchers, to exempt SOME businesses. Thus came the paperwork, plus a nice fee for filing it.... To me, if they can create the mass of paperwork to ensure that the person who is working the job that I used to have can enjoy the smoke free atmosphere while they breeth in the crap that is in the place....well, this should be a peice of cake, and more beneficial...

I'm sorry, but the primary way for someone to support themselves and their family is through work. But, in order for it to be this way, well, their pay has to provide enough to do it. IF what you say is true, that the businesses just can't do this, well, then they are the charity cases, not their employees. Why should the employees be the ones standing in line begging? And, well, wouldn't the line flow a little faster, and with less paper work, if it was the businesses instead?

-------------------------------
Rather than raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and make everyone a bit more comfortable, why not raise it to $35/hour and make everyone rich?
-------------------------------
Because $35/hr isn't necessary. You can survive on less. But, well, regardless of how the money is delivered to the person, that person will need a roof over their head, food in their stomachs, peace of mind that their family is taken care of, medical care if they get sick (not to mention the security issues if their was ever a biological attack in the states), ect. if they are going to be productive members of society. That money is being put out now....it's just a matter of which way is the cheapest way to do it, and which would send out the clearer message. The idea that the businesses pay as little as they possibly can get away with and then their employees are sent to the government to pick up the rest isn't that good of a message, especiallly when so many seem to get away with working so little.. and I really doubt if it's the cheapest way to do it.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
At fifty dollars a barrel Middle Eastern oil and that from South America is becoming rather costly don't you agree. Just South of our border lies an oil reserve hardly mentioned.
I read all the posts and the common thrend against illegal Mexican immigration is the economic impact they place on our social and medical programs. You and I both want this to stop and we can by demmanding our government to demand a barrel of Mexican oil for every Mexican that crosses our Southern border illegaly. All we have to do is round up about a hundred of them and hold them hostage until our demands are met.
The Mexican government would never stand for this and most likely would ask all its citizens to come home.
Wishfull thinking, who can tell until its tried.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Yes, kidnapping and terrorising Mexicans in order to take more resources from Mexico is a great way to solve the problems that come from an impoverished nation living next to the richest country in the world. It's nice to hear such clear, moral and logical thinking.


By the way, for those who propose that Mexicans start "solving their own problems," I agree - as would most Mexicans, actually. How do I know this? Well, I know that President Fox has been working on a number of reforms, including working to eliminate corruption in the government and in the police force, eliminating electoral fraud, making Mexico into a true democracy (which it wasn't really up until Fox was elected), and practicing free trade (NAFTA). These things take time and aren't easy to change, especially because there are so many different philosophies about the best way to jump start an economy. However, no one can accuse the Mexicans of making no effort for change!

I agree that the US is not responsible for Mexico's poor, but I also understand why Fox encourages emigration to the US. As long as there is a place for the poor to go, the Mexican government is less likely to face a revolution. When the lower class pushes for changes, it looks a lot more like Chiapas and the Zapatistas - the sort of radical revolution that most Americans would not like to see happen in a neighboring country.

For those who think the poor crossing into the US are to blame for not solving Mexico's problems, I would like you to look at history to realize that most reform of the sort that the US likes comes from the middle class, not the lower class. The middle class in Mexico appears to be growing, so there is hope for the future.

I think the best thing Americans could do would be to crack down on Americans hiring people illegally (illegal capitalists?) and at the same time develop a closer relationship with Mexico - both to help the country develop now, and to ensure good relations for the day when Mexico becomes a 1st world country.



[edit on 1-2-2005 by Estrella]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Or, have INS do their job by roundning up the illegals and shipping them home. They say its hard to find them, BS! I found a thousand easily watching tv. A school in Florida, none spoke english, they all spoke spanish. Gee, go there, round them up, get the parents, ship them back to Cuba. There, I did more work just stating that then the INS has in the past decade.

Also, build a freaking wall. Instead of wasting billions on a war for oil, jumping colorado squirrel bear mice(the stupid programs that spend money protecting rodents, fish, other forms of life, there are only 58million left, better spend 580million to protect them) Build a wall, and use the army to guard the border, like every other country in the world, except the US and Canada. Make it, LIKE EVERY other country in the world, you invade our borders, we shoot you. We find you in our borders, we either shoot you or send you back and wait for you to cross again so we can shoot you. I don't know why, but when every other country does this, no problem, America? They look at at illegal aliens wrong and it pisses the world off, more.(they already pissed off thanks to Mr. El-Presidente, wait, we not Mexico yet, just have more Mexicans here then Mexico((maybe not, but damn there alot here))

Hell, great book, Treasure, by Clive Cussler. How does Mexico invade America? Not with troops, by telling the people to invade, so you get 10million Mexican citizens at the border, and we can't do anything, they civillians, so they invade, army falls back cause no way they can open fire on them, and Mexico takes America, well no, Dirk Pitt saves the day. But hell, real life? Bye bye American South West, then the rest when they keep advancing.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join